[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Where do we go from here?

[dre4m]

Anusien's latest article is up on Star City. It has some really high points, for example:

I know I talk a lot about metagaming and what decks I think are good deck choices. Partly this is because I do a lot of thinking, theorizing and discussing with people I consider to be good at Legacy.

Someone deserves some credits, but unfortunately he started the article with

Time to be honest: I have no idea where the format is going

Hmm...

the Legacy metagame does not make sense, and it really tends to skew tournament results. At a tournament for any other format, you can look at what decks have been doing well, what decks are good, and what decks are new; those factors along with some regional knowledge allows you to predict the metagame fairly well. The only time you could make Legacy metagame predictions with any sort of accuracy was at Grand Prix: Columbus.

Wasn't that the one where two Sui decks with 8 pump knights maindeck T8'd?

Goblins cannot beat an early Tarmogoyf. Even if the Lhurgoyf comes out as early as possible, on turn 2, it is going to be at least a 2/3. That makes it immune to almost anything Goblins can throw at it.

Last time I checked, a 2/3 didn't stop a hoarde of Goblins that well, and an Incinerator and a Fanatic can probably take this guy down if it needs to be done.

The first change I tried was to cut the Goblin Tinkerers for Chalice of the Void. This is a change that a few of the Legacy Adepts have been considering since Doug Linn suggested it in an article before Flash was errataed.

Unfortunately, I'm not a Legacy Adept, so I don't know if he's talking about this site's adepts, but I am thrilled to see his acknowledgement of Source input if he is.

The summary of the article is basically that Tarmogoyf is a good creature and the best card that has been printed for Legacy lately, and that UGw Threshold is the new deck to beat. Well, obviously the points are debatable, but I think Goblins will, for the time being, be around in sufficient numbers to make this build of thresh a strict metagame call, regardless at how good of an early blocker Tarmogoyf is. I guess we can just all hope that they don't print a low cc goblin that draws cards somehow in Lorwyn.

And finally, just a personal pet peeve,

I have to admit; I enjoyed the Flash metagame.

[Nihil Credo]

That last quote is hardly a surprise. For some obscure reason that cannot absolutely have anything to do with human nature, many people who enjoyed playing combo or blue-based aggro-control liked (or at least didn't dislike) Flash and its effects, while others who favoured other kinds of decks wanted it to be banned. That time has passed, let's move on.

Regarding another point in the article (dre4m's third quote), I want to say that I like Legacy exactly because it is hard to metagame. You can't really have reliable matchup expectations, therefore you need to maximize the abstract power of your deck - in the etymological sense, ab tractum, "taken out of". The deck advantage thus goes not to the most "teched out" (=metagamed) deck, but to the most powerful deck; the defining skill is not knowing each matchup inside-out, but piloting your own deck at the best. Personally, I'd rather spend an afternoon in my room trying out eighty new cards from a MWS search, than in a game shop polling people about what they're going to play next weekend. In a sense, Legacy is the polar opposite of Vintage and Block Constructed, for which I quote Frank Karsten's words:

The second reason why I like Block Constructed so much is that there are not that many possible decks-because the card pool is so small-so you can actually figure out the format completely and metagame correctly. Related to that, playtesting is more important. My best finishes stem from Block Constructed (I finished in the Top 8 in half of the eight Block Constructed Grand Prixs that I have played, and I have finished in the money in five out of the six Block Constructed Pro Tours that I have played), because I put in enough time to find the best deck, tune it well, and playtest and practice a lot.

Usually, when everyone is slacking, I get try to get people to test, because it actually pays off for Block Constructed. There are not that many archetypes or cards around, and the games go longer, so solid playtesting will yield real results. In Extended, you might work on a deck for a long time, and tune it against a gauntlet of ten decks, and then in the tournament you will play against seven other decks that you did not test against, and the games only took five turns each with little interaction, and you wonder what use that playtesting was. This will not happen in Block Constructed. I speak from experience; I have gotten consistent good finishes in Block Constructed tournaments because I usually play a tuned version of the best control deck and have enough experience with it due to playtesting. This experience will certainly pay off for mirror matches, which is often neglected in playtesting, but it is very important in Block Constructed. When I played Astral Slide in Onslaught Block, Gifts Ungiven in Kamigawa Block, or Blue-Black-White Control in Time Spiral Block, I was hoping to face the mirror match every round. The mirror match was my best matchup; I rarely lost it.
I remember one week where I got together with a few Dutch players a couple years ago and we tested like 30 Gifts Ungiven mirrors per day. Perhaps that is crazy, but it did work for me. So the morale of my story is that if you want to win a Pro Tour Qualifier, then practice a lot (and don't forget to test the mirror match). Hard work will pay off in the Block Constructed format, because the games go longer and the amount of cards you see is smaller.

We Legacy players may be devoted to our format, enough so to post daily on The Source, but we usually aren't fanatics, and we definitely aren't The Fanatic (mostly because we don't have a monetary incentive, but that's something for another post).

[Nightmare]

You can't really have reliable matchup expectations, therefore you need to maximize the abstract power of your deck - in the etymological sense, ab tractum, "taken out of". The deck advantage thus goes not to the most "teched out" (=metagamed) deck, but to the most powerful deck; the defining skill is not knowing each matchup inside-out, but piloting your own deck at the best.

I completely disagree with you. You absolutely can be successful in Legacy by choosing the correct deck. If it were truly about which deck has the most power in a vacuum, we'd all be playing TES and Belcher mirrors all day.

Unfortunately, I'm not a Legacy Adept, so I don't know if he's talking about this site's adepts, but I am thrilled to see his acknowledgement of Source input if he is.

He's referring to the TMD Adepts.

[dre4m]

He's referring to the TMD Adepts.

That figures. Were the Adepts here tossing this idea around as well?

[Peter_Rotten]

That figures. Were the Adepts here tossing this idea around as well?

Not that I know of.

[Nightmare]

Do any of the adepts here even consider Goblins a serious deck anymore?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Do any of the adepts here even consider Goblins a serious deck anymore?

Please tell me you're being ironic and mocking Anusien or something.

[Nightmare]

Please tell me you're being ironic and mocking Anusien or something.

No, really. Do any adepts actually play Goblins as their deck of choice?

[Finn]

Adam, you are joking I hope.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No, really. Do any adepts actually play Goblins as their deck of choice?

This is a biased sample. Adepts are people who inherently are involved in pushing decks and metagames; Mr. Nipples, for instance, has had far more tournament success in the past year with Goblins than probably any of the Adepts, but he rarely posts in the constructive development forums. Why should he? His deck's already pretty close to perfect, and certainly far better than the vast majority of the things people are actually posting about. You're making this irrational assumption that there's a connection between how active a deck is in Source discussion and how good it is in the format. Goblins is already a known factor; while there's still room to innovate, there's not that much room to do so.

[Nightmare]

This is a biased sample. Adepts are people who inherently are involved in pushing decks and metagames; Mr. Nipples, for instance, has had far more tournament success in the past year with Goblins than probably any of the Adepts, but he rarely posts in the constructive development forums. Why should he? His deck's already pretty close to perfect, and certainly far better than the vast majority of the things people are actually posting about. You're making this irrational assumption that there's a connection between how active a deck is in Source discussion and how good it is in the format. Goblins is already a known factor; while there's still room to innovate, there's not that much room to do so.

That's a fair response. Sometimes I forget that people play in places that aren't innovative.

Edit - to preempt backlash, I should say that Syracuse's metagame literally contains zero Goblin decks. Every person that regularly plays there tests new decks (or at least, radical changes to their deck) on an almost weekly basis. It's a pat on the back of Syracuse, not a knock to everyone else.

[Finn]

Edit - to preempt backlash, I should say that Syracuse's metagame literally contains zero Goblin decks. Every person that regularly plays there tests new decks (or at least, radical changes to their deck) on an almost weekly basis. It's a pat on the back of Syracuse, not a knock to everyone else.

In my experience, outsiders call this sort of a metagame "jank". I don't think that it is a fair description, but not having Goblins around (when it will certainly be present in the most important tournaments) simply skews the perception of the viability of new decks in a format where that perennial winner is still at or close to top of the heap.

[Anusien]

No, really. Do any adepts actually play Goblins as their deck of choice?

Machinus.

[Nightmare]

In my experience, outsiders call this sort of a metagame "jank". I don't think that it is a fair description, but not having Goblins around (when it will certainly be present in the most important tournaments) simply skews the perception of the viability of new decks in a format where that perennial winner is still at or close to top of the heap.

It certainly hasn't hurt our tournament performance on the whole. It's not as if I'm saying "People from Syracuse ignore the Goblin matchup." Rather, much like Jack said, it's a known commodity. You can generally skimp on testing it because it's largely the same matchup it was 6 months ago, and that's the same as it was 6 months before that. I agree though, if I wasn't in the middle of it, I would definately call our metagame jank. The last tournament we had, I played against Belcher, 4CLandstill with MD Cunning Wish, Train Wreck, and RGB Flow Rock.

[Pale Moon FTW]

It seems that the americans calling the european metagame random needs to look a little more at their own metagames then.

[Nightmare]

It seems that the americans calling the european metagame random needs to look a little more at their own metagames then.

Don't base it on me. I know my metagame is random (I've also never said Europe's is).

[Bane of the Living]

I think saying Legacy and metagame in the same sentence is a conundrum.

I play against a slew of different decks almost every week. Sometimes gobs is there sometimes it isnt. Sometimes there isnt a single combo deck, other times there are a few.

I hate to see how Anusien and Machinus give us these little playtesting notes with outdated goblin lists. Neither of them play green for Tin Street Hooligan but they both have Thresh lists with Pithing Needles and/or Explosives. I really feel this skews match results and think they need to reconsider their builds. It would seriously alter their theories.

[Machinus]

Neither of them play green for Tin Street Hooligan but they both have Thresh lists with Pithing Needles and/or Explosives. I really feel this skews match results and think they need to reconsider their builds. It would seriously alter their theories.

???

I've been playing 3 hooligans for months.

[Anusien]

I think saying Legacy and metagame in the same sentence is a conundrum.

I play against a slew of different decks almost every week. Sometimes gobs is there sometimes it isnt. Sometimes there isnt a single combo deck, other times there are a few.

I hate to see how Anusien and Machinus give us these little playtesting notes with outdated goblin lists. Neither of them play green for Tin Street Hooligan but they both have Thresh lists with Pithing Needles and/or Explosives. I really feel this skews match results and think they need to reconsider their builds. It would seriously alter their theories.

I'm not convinced Hooligan is optimal. I was using Tinkerers there; they are better in some matchups and worse in others. Regardless the slots and sideboarding I was playing with replaced that slot, so whether I run Tinkerer or Tin-Street is literally irrelevant.
Plus, I'm pretty sure if you play the deck at all, you want White in the Sideboard.

[kirdape3]

If I'm playing Legacy for realz, I'll Goblin or Affinity. Any deck that makes the finals of both American Grand Prix is probably pretty good, and the only thing that they killed from Affinity is Skullclamp (which would be silly).

The only difference is that Goblins is no longer 'first among equals' in Legacy due to the rise of good combo decks. Goblins kills the anti-combo decks just fine, but it's not necessarily so awesome against the combo decks themselves.